lcrocker(a)nupedia.com wrote:
Vandalism isn't the /only/ possible reason to ban someone. We banned
Mr. "24" because he consistently refused to work with the community,
undermined our goals, and made personal attacks.
Interesting. I was unaware that 24 was banned. How was this decided?
Was there a decision made to not ban me (mirwin)? I was attacked
for merely stating my personal opinion that I did not consider "24"
a troll.
I was called a nutcase because I concluded that the software engineering
article was biased and erased the heavily biased content to start the
article over. Lee, I, and others eventually reached an acceptable
compromise
on the material but I did not consider it helpful being called a nutcase
to begin the negotiations/discussion on how to properly restructure
the article.
I was ridiculed on various talk pages after attempting to participate
constructively in "24" attempt at meta to establish a process to
develop and define community mores, policies, procedures, etc.
Was the ban on "24" applied to meta as well as wikipedia?
Was there any discussion of banning others who were making personal
attacks in this time frame?
As I recall grade school disciplinary actions they were typically
applied to instigators or all parties. 24 alleged at one point
that others were attacking him and camping on articles he originated
or attempted to modify.
It is not clear to me that others were behaving towards 24 and his/her
material in ways that were consistent with the published guidelines.
If Helga continues
to interfere with our job of making good articles,
won't participate
in our process, doesn't contribute in other ways, and eats up the
time and energy of others here who /do/ contribute, then maybe
banning is the right thing.
Or perhaps a new feature for non-vandals like them: being restricted
to editing Talk pages only?
This is really moving into revision control. It is fundamental
to the discussion "24" and a few others were attempting to stimulate
at various times at meta. Apparently "24"'s antics also made him/her
unpopular enough that banning or censorship was deemed appropriate
rather than addressing the issue of how legitimate revision authority
is established or derived in this "community".
I think it would be better long term for the wikipedia if this
issue were resolved through a general mechanism that is hard
for individuals, small groups, or cabals to subvert or misuse.
Alternatively, the "community" could be honest up front with new
people regarding who has what authority and simply must be placated
to retain write access.
Perhaps a "draft" or "proposed revision" page could be added
where proposed changes could be seen and revised. When a change
has acquired a defined threshold of approval then it automatically
occurs.
If Helga's (or 24s or mirwin's or some other unpopulist) perspective
cannot attain the threshold then they would automatically remain
on the draft page until rewritten to a form acceptable to
sufficient others.
mirwin